@Imperious:
Each player would have a “hand” of certain number of these leaders available on fixed turns, and would get use of perhaps one per front.
Dont like it, figure this will make it a scripted game. And what if you purchase all infantry in turn 5, and the only Leader available that turn is an admiral ? This is so against the spirit of A&A. This is what I dont like with the WWII- The struggle for Europe and Pacific game, Rommel will always turn up in Libya turn 8, and you better own Libya that turn, or Rommel go straight to POW-camp.
In the spirit of A&A, you spend the extra money and purchase the Leader that you really want, anytime.
In case you are short of cash, let the men fight without a Leader.
@Imperious:
Or they boost specific units ( specifics to be determined)
Rommel boosts 2 mech or two artillery +1 for one round
Manstein could boost 3-4 tanks
Chuikov could boost three infantry +1 in Victory Cities
Guess what, I’m against the specific unit re-roll too.
I dont think FMG or HBG are making person specific Leader units, only a generic piece, so the Leader rule need to be streamlined.
Anything else than that, and it aint funny no more, man
Razor,
A German Admiral could be placed in Normandy(after it’s captured) and his command capabilities would depend on his “range”, let’s say 3. If his range couldn’t cover everything in the Atlantic and elsewhere, he would either have to:
A. Go to sea to enable complete coverage, or B. Forfeit complete coverage.
A good example would be when the Allies couldn’t provide air coverage of the convoys in
“mid-ocean” because of the range of their aircraft.
If he went to sea he would need to have plenty of escorts to protect him, or run the risk of going down with his ship, like Admiral Lutjens on the Bismark.
I don’t understand any difficulty with this.
“Tall Paul”
Like I said previously, I’m in favor of the larger countrys’ starting with a smaller number of “commanders”(possibly 2). That would allow each country to emphasize the strategies they prefer through their purchases of units and “commanders”.
“Tall Paul”
@Imperious:
- Each Leader may re-roll 5 dice every turn.
IMHO I think it might be more equitable, and much less game-changing if the Leader only
"re-rolled a percentage of the rolls, (1/2, 1/3), or possibly just a smaller number, whatever people feel is fair but not too powerfull.
@Imperious:
- The Leader must be present in the territory/seazone where the re-rolling take place.
If we use the “range” method, he wouldn’t have to be in the exact land/sea zone, only within “range” (of his command).
@Imperious:
- A Leader can be purchased the same way as other units, and die when he is the last piece, just like a Tranny.
I agree 100% with you on this as it allows the player to emphasize his personal strategies. Whether they be Naval, Army, or Air Force.
“Tall Paul”
@Tall:
@Imperious:
- Each Leader may re-roll 5 dice every turn.
IMHO I think it might be more equitable, and much less game-changing if the Leader only
"re-rolled a percentage of the rolls, (1/2, 1/3), or possibly just a smaller number, whatever people feel is fair but not too powerfull.@Imperious:
- The Leader must be present in the territory/seazone where the re-rolling take place.
If we use the “range” method, he wouldn’t have to be in the exact land/sea zone, only within “range” (of his command).
@Imperious:
- A Leader can be purchased the same way as other units, and die when he is the last piece, just like a Tranny.
I agree 100% with you on this as it allows the player to emphasize his personal strategies. Whether they be Naval, Army, or Air Force.
“Tall Paul”
Completely agree with Tall Paul here on units’ power. Slightest changes in this game’s balance and play REALLY affect things so I’d say keep it low if you like the re-roll concept…only two or three tops (IMHO).
On “range” I feel this way - the size of a terriory is VERY large in a military scale (i.e. - ALL of Central France, ALL of Western Germany, etc). A Corps or Army Commander would likely only affect units in the same territory - that to me is a “Field Commander” vs a “Theater” Commander or “Supreme Commander.”
For killing off the unit, either they should die like anyone else, or perhaps can be considered captured and held by the captor until ransomed by the owner at which point sent back to the nearest Victory City/home territory controlled?? Just a thought maybe…
DFWSupertrooper,
On “range” I feel this way - the size of a terriory is VERY large in a military scale (i.e. - ALL of Central France, ALL of Western Germany, etc). A Corps or Army Commander would likely only affect units in the same territory - that to me is a “Field Commander” vs a “Theater” Commander or “Supreme Commander.”
DFWSupertrooper, I agree with your general thoughts concerning the “range” of land Generals.
–---------------------------
But as for the Naval Admirals they usually (but not always) had much larger “theater” sized commands (“range”). Like “Atlantic”, “South Pacific”, “Pacific Ocean Areas”, etc.
I believe the Admirals would need a larger “range”,…OR just give them a
geographical “range”, such as “Atlantic”.
What does everyone think??? (concerning the Admirals)
“Tall Paul”
@Tall:
DFWSupertrooper,
On “range” I feel this way - the size of a terriory is VERY large in a military scale (i.e. - ALL of Central France, ALL of Western Germany, etc). A Corps or Army Commander would likely only affect units in the same territory - that to me is a “Field Commander” vs a “Theater” Commander or “Supreme Commander.”
DFWSupertrooper, I agree with your general thoughts concerning the “range” of land Generals.
–---------------------------
But as for the Naval Admirals they usually (but not always) had much larger “theater” sized commands (“range”). Like “Atlantic”, “South Pacific”, “Pacific Ocean Areas”, etc.
I believe the Admirals would need a larger “range”,…OR just give them a
geographical “range”, such as “Atlantic”.
What does everyone think??? (concerning the Admirals)
“Tall Paul”
Yeah, Paul. Agreed. I think your idea is spot on on that - perhaps a Field Commander unit should be different than a Fleet Commander unit in scope?
The range thing is not necessary. What we have is field generals vs. centralized high command which makes strategic decisions.
Patton is a field commander and should direct units only in his area.
Eisenhower is a strategic commander and effects where people like Patton fight.
So the benefit of a field commander should include combat bonuses or re rolls.
The benefit of a strategic commander ( located within say 6 spaces of directed units) could be greater movement, placement bonus ( you can place a build say somewhere a factory is not) or perhaps defender retreats.
IL,
I believe what DFWSupertrooper and I were referring to was the the differrences between an ARMY GENERAL and a NAVY ADMIRAL.
"Tall Paul
I was not responding to those posts, just making a comment of general note.
I guess on defense a field general should have this
On attack i would prefer to see re rolls on tanks or mech if they miss, or some unique combined arms bonus ( Each air unit, 2 move unit, and 1 move unit gets free roll at 4 or less?)
An Admiral would need air unit, submarine and surface warship at 1:1:1 and get extra 4 or less
Strategic commander ( the one with range past his own space) can move 1 space units +1 in movement or NCM, or use points to place new units in non- factory city?
Perhaps a General could have 5 points each ( 5 star general) or whatever…each action costs 1 point.
Each point gets one extra movement or re-roll. On defense perhaps infantry can be boosted +1 if they are in home areas.
I like the idea of the General that let some units re-roll.
I imagine that the General is a HQ with hugh piles of fuel and supply, so if a tank unit rolls a miss in the first try, the General talk to this men and stiff up their morale and fighting spirit, and give them extra fuel and supply to try again. Playing with a General will be like playing with Low Luck. But of course, he only have so much extra fuel and supply, that he can only do this treat to 5 divisions.
I figure a General should cost 15 IPC, since that is the same as an Airbase or Naval Base.
So how many re-rolls do you get each turn, or round of combat, for 15 IPC ?
2 ?
3 ?
5 ?
Now it all comes down to math.
Also, how about stacking ?
It looks like you can stack anything this days, even AA-guns. You can sort of “stack” facilities too, but only in the negative direction. So what if you spend a lot of money and buy 2 Generals ? UHU. Now they can re-roll like 10 dice, that feels kind of powerful. Its kind of like US buy 10 Bombers and carpet bomb the new reinforcements that Germany just placed on the map. Or 5 Battleships shore bombard your coast.
A while since I’ve posted here.
I do think things need to be kept simple. As simple as possible. However, I think the problem that a lot of people are having is treating the commander as “just another unit”. Think about it - each battle would usually have some form of overall commander. I think what we are trying to simulate here is one with unusually high ability at a tactical level (strategic operations are performed by the player, which I think eliminates the need for theatre or supreme commanders). However, natural talent/experience can’t be simply “bought”.
For commander placement, I’m thinking something along these lines:
Whenever a “1” is rolled by ANY unit, the owning player gains a “point” towards a commander (keep track of this by a seperate IPC stack or something). Immediately after gaining a set number of points, say 10, that player places a commander in any territory or capital ship. Once a player has a maximum number of commanders in play (1 for minor powers, 3 for major), they stop counting points. When they go below this maximum, they can start counting again.
This would simulate the recognition and “promotion” of a tactically minded individual(s). Who cares whether it’s Patton or Zhukov, it’s a “commander” for KISS’ sake.
As for what a commander does, I believe they should be able to re-roll once for every type of unit they are assigned to. This would encourage combined arms whilst keeping the commanders balanced, I think. More than 1 commander in a territory is considered to still be one commander, to prevent massive “unbeatable” stacks.
Hope that all makes sense. :)
The range thing is not necessary. What we have is field generals vs. centralized high command which makes strategic decisions.
Patton is a field commander and should direct units only in his area.
Eisenhower is a strategic commander and effects where people like Patton fight.
So the benefit of a field commander should include combat bonuses or re rolls.
The benefit of a strategic commander ( located within say 6 spaces of directed units) could be greater movement, placement bonus ( you can place a build say somewhere a factory is not) or perhaps defender retreats.
I agree with IL.
Personnaly I prefer field commander (Patton, Rommel) and why not give the chance to the player to kill a field commander.(bonus?)
Or effect the moral of troops?
Got commanders in IL’s WW2 game. 21 of them. even one for Finland.
OK here is another idea:
A Field Commander should be able to select one unit each turn and roll a die at 4 or less ( or any other number) and the hit goes against the targeted unit. So you only get one special roll.
This makes a general more like another unit with a special ability. I guess you can start with x number of generals and to build one costs 15 IPC.
ON defense just let the defender retreat if he has a general.
If you want to include a strategic Commander ( Hitler, Eisenhower, Stalin, Tojo) you must include a range and this commander cannot be bought and you only get one. Typically he is placed in the capital and if lost should cost the same as losing a VC. If not that then the player suffers an economic loss of X IPC due to morale loss
Effects of Strategic Commander: ( can do more than one in a turn)
Can order units to retreat as defender
Can place one infantry in any area you own ( even if you don’t have a factory) during placement
Can move X units a double speed in NCM
?
Can order units to retreat as defender
I think about defender retreat long time ago but I was afraid that became a retreat nightmare.
But I like the idea, retreat only with a field commander is not bad solution.
But if i’m not wrong…Patton was not a retreat lover!
This commander idea must be kept SIMPLE. As I have posted previously the commander should be tactical and have special abilities within the army he is in or the fleet. The best way is to have him with target ability for certain units. We have used the tactical bombers, the tanks, the battleships and the cruisers. Also the commander should have the retreat option when defending. This has worked well for our games. We have been giving three commanders to each major nation on the setup. Maybe four or five would work but we have never tried that many. My new Italian units will be here soon and they include commander units
